United States v. Sanders

United States Court of Military Appeals

United States v. Sanders

13 C.M.A. 322, 13 USCMA 322, 32 C.M.R. 322, 1962 CMA LEXIS 184, 1962 WL 4494

United States Court of Military Appeals·Decided September 21, 1962·No. No. 16,163·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The accused stands convicted of three specifications of larceny, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921. Although the thefts occurred at substantially the same time and place, the law officer informed the court-martial that they were separately punishable. This was prejudicial error. United States v Florence, 1 USCMA 620, 5 CMR 48; United States v Swigert, 8 USCMA 468, 24 CMR 278.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for further reference to the board and appropriate reassessment of the sentence.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The accused stands convicted of three specifications of larceny, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921. Although the thefts occurred at substantially the same time and place, the law officer informed the court-martial that they were separately punishable. This was prejudicial error. United States v Florence, 1 USCMA 620, 5 CMR 48; United States v Swigert, 8 USCMA 468, 24 CMR 278.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for further reference to the board and appropriate reassessment of the sentence.

United States v. Sanders, 13 C.M.A. 322, 13 USCMA 322, 32 C.M.R. 322, 1962 CMA LEXIS 184, 1962 WL 4494 (cma 1962).

Pincite

13 C.M.A. 322 (United States v. Sanders) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related